I'm against the very idea of race and gender quotas. The best person for a position should fill that position. If you choose to fill the position with a person less than the best, then you're not maximizing the potential of that position. I thought all these people were supposed to be greedy. If they're greedy, why would they hire someone who wouldn't give the best return on investment? If they're more bigoted than greedy, then all the talented women and minorities will go elsewhere and out-compete them. Unless, of course, you're such a bigot that you think women and minorities are incapable of building something that could compete with white men...

I've never had this kind of faith in the Free Market. I think it's why I could never really be a libertarian: too much of it would require me to trust the rich and powerful not to screw me. The government will screw me too, but at least I get a vote.

I'm against the very idea of race and gender quotas. The best person for a position should fill that position. If you choose to fill the position with a person less than the best, then you're not maximizing the potential of that position. I thought all these people were supposed to be greedy. If they're greedy, why would they hire someone who wouldn't give the best return on investment? If they're more bigoted than greedy, then all the talented women and minorities will go elsewhere and out-compete them. Unless, of course, you're such a bigot that you think women and minorities are incapable of building something that could compete with white men...

I've never had this kind of faith in the Free Market. I think it's why I could never really be a libertarian: too much of it would require me to trust the rich and powerful not to screw me. The government will screw me too, but at least I get a vote.

The government is an organization much like a large business. Only, instead of directly courting your money by offering things you want, governments have the authority to extract your money and compliance by force. Yes, you get a vote, but your vote is based on the information you're provided, which makes the information brokers incredibly powerful. Like any organization, the information brokers are human beings, subject to corruption and bias. Your vote isn't based on who is empirically best for you, but who can best persuade you they are the best choice. This creates an incentive to control the persuasive process, from the fundamental (government provided education) to the immediate (news media).

We find ourselves in a situation where teachers almost exclusively get paid by the state, and the news media is full of high-placed executives married to similar highly-placed government officials. But sure, entrust all the power to the state, confident in the knowledge that the vote is an independent method of gauging suitability for governance.

Mind you, big business isn't innocent either, but their most grievous acts involve getting the government to enforce their interests.

I don't see how the ultra-rich enforcing their interests is less dangerous than the government enforcing its interests.

Businesses can't enforce anything. They lobby the government to do it.

EDIT: I think I see the source of confusion now. I wasn't referring to the government enforcing the government's interests. Though, the government's interests ARE distinct from the populace's interests. I was referring to the government enforcing the interests of the corporations that lobby the lawmakers.

Wildfires? Isn't California already underwater, though? Because much more prestigious academic institutions insisted we would have zero natural ice left on Earth by summer 2016? Hard to have wildfires underwater, as I understand it.

Increased CO2 makes plants less vulnerable to drought, and recent studies by the IPCC have called into question the connection between CO2 increase and severe weather or droughts. This study - and I did read it - looks like California agencies trying to justify their own budgets. It doesn't demonstrate the causal links it claims to, and ignores a host of relevant factors.

"I'm not going to refute your opinions, but I'm going to act concerned about you for having them! They're clearly not reasoned positions held by healthy, well-adjusted people!"

Classy.

Yeah, did not think this one through.

Hey, it's cool. I've said more than my fair share of stupid things on here and elsewhere, and that honestly read more like concern than anything. I was more legitimately uncertain how to take it. And regardless, everyone should feel free to give their two cents as long as its done respectfully.

And to be honest, as good as that ideal is, right now we simply live in times in which assholes in power across the world have a raging hard-on for Hitler and people are bending over backwards to call for "calm discourse" and "finding common ground".

And to be honest, as good as that ideal is, right now we simply live in times in which assholes in power across the world have a raging hard-on for Hitler and people are bending over backwards to call for "calm discourse" and "finding common ground".

We live in a time in which the media and spoiled little shitheads have a penchant for calling everyone a Nazi if they're not a communist. They polarize the discourse in order to justify the horrible things they say and do. This small minority of assholes screams about policies the Democrats supported during the Obama campaign and claims they are literally as bad as genocide. They reject essential freedoms as Nazi ideals and demand authoritarian control.

Increased CO2 makes plants less vulnerable to drought, and recent studies by the IPCC have called into question the connection between CO2 increase and severe weather or droughts. This study - and I did read it - looks like California agencies trying to justify their own budgets. It doesn't demonstrate the causal links it claims to, and ignores a host of relevant factors.

Those agencies deserve every dollar they get and more besides, if you ask me. Climate change is everybody's problem, and the free market isn't going to solve it.

Thank you for reminding me of one of my favorite comedic rants of just how foolish the state of California is. Bill Hick's Arizona Bay was brilliant and eternal (1992). Amazing how little has actually changed.